Aztec Auto Sales

This letter is in response to the complaint submitted to the Revdex.com on the 30th day of April, which is identified by ID #: ***Aztec Auto Sales denies the complaint in its' entirety and affirmatively states that every effort was taken by Aztec Auto to accommodate the
complainant, to no availThat on the 1st day of September, the complainant did sign a finance contract for the purchase of a Chevrolet Tahoe to which the conditions of the contract included an extended warranty of days or miles which is above and beyond the legally required standard warranty of days or miles as determined by the State of New MexicoAt the time of the contract signing the vehicle was mechanically sound, and fit for sale.When the complainant returned to Aztec Auto on September 16, there was more than miles that had been put on the vehicle, and thereby the extended warranty period had expiredUpon evaluation of the mechanical repairs necessary to fix the vehicle the transmission was found to have been significantly damagedThe complainant was quoted $2,to repair the transmission, which included parts and laborAztec Auto affirmatively states that no "blame," was ever implied or insinuated against the complainantHowever, the complainant was advised of the fact that the extended warranty period had expired to which the cost of all repairs would therefore be the obligation of the complainantThe complainant refused the repair on the basis that a week turnaround for the repairs to be completed was unacceptableAztec Auto compromised with the complainant by cancelling the contract, and taking the return of the vehicle which was not a legal requirement of performance on the part of Aztec Auto because the extended warranty period had expiredA new finance contract was then offered to the complainant for a GMC Yukon to which the same extended warranty of days or miles was applied as a term of the contractFour Months later the complainant again returned to Aztec Auto following the expiration of the extended warrantyThe complainant stated that the overdrive had failed so the vehicle was evaluated by the Aztec Auto garage, and the vehicle transmission was found to have been significantly damagedAs it is the case that the 2nd vehicle has a similar transmission system to the 1st vehicle the complainant was again quoted $2,to repair the transmission, which included parts and laborThe complainant again refused the repair on the basis that a week turnaround for the repairs to be completed was unacceptableAs a compromise to the complainant Aztec Auto cancelled the 2nd contract and negotiated a new contract with the same extended warranty for a third vehicle identified to be a Chevrolet TahoeAt no time was the complainant ever quoted $5,for any service or repairThereafter the complainant failed and refused to make any monthly payments on the third vehicle as required pursuant to the finance contractAfter repeated attempts by Aztec Auto to communicate with the complainant the complainant failed and refused all communicationsUsing the GPS tracking device installed on the vehicle as a term and condition of the finance contract Aztec Auto did disable and repossesses the vehicle in accordance with New Mexico State Law on the 5th day of April, In no way at any time were the representatives of Aztec Auto aggressive or threatening, and Aztec Auto affirmatively states that it has no control over the driving habits or mannerisms of the complainant which led to the destruction of the transmissions on the first two vehicles following the expiration of the extended warranty periodsAt the time of sale the vehicles were mechanically sound as evidenced by the fact that both vehicles survived the extended warranty periods without incident or complaintAztec Auto denies the claim of the complainant for a refund of $12,886.00, and demands strict proof thereofAztec Auto affirmatively states that at no time did the complainant ever tender $12,to Aztec AutoFinally, Aztec Auto affirms that should this matter proceed to Court then Aztec Auto will raise a counterclaim against the complainant for the accumulated arrearage on the third vehicle for the complainant having failed and refused to make their contractually obligated monthly payments while benefiting from the usage of that vehicle